Kiran Devi
April 30 2014
__._,_.___
The CBDT has announced the setting up of a "National Judicial Reference System" (NJRS).
The NJRS comprises of two components, the "Appeals repository and Management System" and the "Judicial Research and Reference System".
The Appeals repository is a database of all appeals pending in the ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court. The system will enable the status of the appeals to be tracked with an alert system. The big advantage of this database is that the entire litigation history of a tax payer will be available at the press of a button.
The Judicial Research and Reference System is a database of all decisions of the ITAT, High Courts & the Supreme Court. The cases will be indexed, searchable and cross-linked. The database will also have the relevant statutory enactments, circulars etc.
There are several other interesting aspects of the NJRS which you can read in the CBDT's letter dated 29.04.2014. From the detailed description of the NJRS, it is clear that it will be a mammoth exercise, requiring the active co-operation of a number of agencies, including the judicial bodies.
It is expected that the NJRS will go-live by November/ December 2014. We wish the CBDT good luck for timely and proper implementation of the NJRS.
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:
No s. 14A/ Rule 8D disallowance for investment in shares of subsidiaries & Joint Ventures
Sebi may act on PwC's MCX audit |
Mumbai, 30 April The Securities and Exchange Board of India ( Sebi) will soon direct the BSE to independently check for violations of listing agreement norms at Multi Commodity Exchange ( MCX), following PricewaterhouseCoopers' adverse findings, said sources. The capital market watchdog is also likely to approach the Union ministry of corporate affairs to probe allegations of breach of various clauses in the Companies Act, they said. Separately, the commodity markets regulator, the Forward Markets Commission, on Wednesday sent the PwC audit report to MCA and the Enforcement Directorate ( ED). The ED is going to examine allegation of money laundering at MCX, sources said. The special audit report by PwC, a summary of which was made public on Tuesday, has highlighted serious corporate governance lapses and non- compliance with regulations. For instance, the audit revealed MCX had only disclosed names of 235 related party entities, while PwC's background checks revealed at least 670 more known or related parties. Also, the PwC audit summary noted payouts to trading members or related parities worth millions " without adequate substantiation". BSE will have to verify whether any of the PwC findings breach any listing agreement clauses. The latter agreement is a contract between a stock exchange and a listed company. It comprises a little more than 50 clauses — on corporate governance and information- based disclosures such as filing of results, shareholding data and related party deals — which listed companies have to follow. Failure to disclose related party business dealings is a violation of Clause 32 of the listing agreement. MCX is the country's only listed commodity bourse. It is listed solely on the BSE; it also trades on the National Stock Exchange, under the permitted to trade category. At present, ensuring compliance with the listing agreement has to be done by the exchanges. Typically, they order suspension of trading in companies for repeated violations of the agreement. Violators also face a penalty of up to ₹ 25 crore under the Securities Contracts Regulation Act. " Sebi will not like to undermine the authority of BSE and will want the exchange to verify facts before taking any action on the alleged violations," said a person in the know. Corporate governance experts said the role of independent directors and the audit committee at MCX can be questioned, given the adverse findings in the PwC audit. Shares of MCX on Wednesday ended at ₹ 533.55, down ₹ 40.55, or 7.1 per cent. |Sebi might ask BSE to probe violation of listing norms at MCX |Regulator might also approach MCA to check for breaches in the Companies Act |PwC report has noted payouts to related parties |Failure to disclose related party business dealings is a violation of Clause 32 of the listing agreement |Listed entity violating listing agreement norms faces suspension in trading, penalty Regulator likely to write to BSE, corporate affairs ministry on alleged violations of listing norms |
To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add (newsletter@mailer.sharekhan.com) to your address book.
| ||
Summary of Contents STOCK IDEA TVS Motor Company Riding scooter demand Key points
STOCK UPDATE Bharti Airtel Price target revised to Rs370 Result highlights
Federal Bank Steady performance, robust outlook Result highlights
Bajaj Corp Disappointment continues in Q4, maintain Reduce Result highlights
Greaves Cotton Q4 disappoints; near-term pain but expect significant improvement ahead Result highlights
| ||
Regards, |
This e-mail message may contain information, which is confidential, proprietary, legally privileged or subject to copyright. It is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or it appears that this mail has been forwarded to you without proper authority, you are not authorized to access, read, disclose, copy, use or otherwise deal with it and any such actions are prohibited and may be unlawful. The recipient acknowledges that Sharekhan Limited or its subsidiaries, (collectively "Sharekhan "), are unable to exercise control or ensure or guarantee the integrity of/over the contents of the information contained in e-mail transmissions and further acknowledges that any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of Sharekhan . Sharekhan does not accept liability for any errors, omissions, viruses or computer problems experienced as a result of this email. Before opening any attachments please check them for viruses and defects. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at mail to: mailadmin@sharekhan.com and delete this mail from your records.
Dear Subscriber,
The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.
No s. 14A/ Rule 8D disallowance for investment in shares of subsidiaries & Joint Ventures
In AY 2009-10, the assessee has specifically raised a point before the AO that 97.82% of the investment is in subsidiary companies and joint venture companies and, therefore, no expenditure was incurred for maintaining the portfolio on these investments or for holding the same. The assessee has also pointed out that these investments are long term investment and no decision is required in making the investment or disinvestment on regular basis because these investments are strategic in nature in the subsidiary companies on long term basis and, therefore, no direct or indirect expenditure is incurred. The department has not disputed this fact that out of the total investment about 98% of the investments are in subsidiary companies of the assessee and, therefore, the purpose of investment is not for earning the dividend income but having control and business purpose and consideration. Therefore, prima facie the assessee has made out a case to show that no expenditure has been incurred for maintaining these long term investment in subsidiary companies. The AO has not brought out any contrary fact or material to show that the assessee has incurred any expenditure for maintaining these investments or portfolio of these investments. In Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co it was held that s. 14A(2) does not ifso facto empower the AO to apply the method prescribed by Rule 8D straightaway without considering whether the claim made by the assessee is correct. Also, in Garware Wall Ropes it was held that a disallowance u/s 14A cannot be made if the primary object of investment is holding controlling stake in the group concern and not earning any income out of investment. Similarly, in Oriental Structural Engineers (approved by the Delhi High Court) it has been held that s. 14A disallowance cannot be made for investment in subsidiaries and SPVs out of commercial expediency
CBDT's low tax effect circulars have prospective effect
Clause 11 of Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 specifically states that "this instruction will apply to appeals filed on or after 9.02.2011. However, the cases where appeals have been filed before 9.02.2011 will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed." Similarly, clause 11 of instruction No. 5/2008 dated 15.5.2008 specifically provides that "this instruction will apply to appeals filed on or after 15.05.2008. However, the cases where appeals have been filed before 15.05.2008 will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed". There is, thus, no ambiguity in the instructions of either 2011 or 2008 as regards the applicability of those instructions in respect of the appeals, and, at the same time, it has also been made clear that if those appeals are not filed after the given dates mentioned in those instructions, the fate of the appeals will be governed in accordance with the instructions prevailing on the date of presentation of such appeals. In view of such clear legislative intention, we are unable to hold that even if an appeal is filed prior to 9.02.2011, the same would be barred notwithstanding the fact that at the time of filing such appeal, the same was not barred by the then instructions of the CBDT (Sureshchandra Durgaprasad Khatod reversed, Vijaya V. Kavekar (Bom), Madhukar K. Inamdar (Bom) & other judgements dissented from)
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:S. 234E: High Court grants ad-interim stay against operation of notices levying fee for failure to file TDS statement